From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 27 20:54:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7D616A420 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:54:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [64.7.153.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4427643D48 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:54:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k0RKs5qg091008; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:54:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simian.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0RKs3Ve060122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:54:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.0.20060127151232.06f21160@64.7.153.2> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:54:01 -0500 To: Mike Jakubik From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <43DA7B1B.4090704@rogers.com> References: <20060125201450.GE25397@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20060127085653.GA51554@uk.tiscali.com> <43D9E1D2.6060207@rogers.com> <200601270927.33772.jhb@freebsd.org> <43DA7B1B.4090704@rogers.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 64.7.153.18 Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] CPU accounting patches X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:54:07 -0000 At 02:57 PM 27/01/2006, Mike Jakubik wrote: >Well thats fine and all, its not like the patch will prevent powerd >from working, right? > >P.S. I don't know of any colo that charges for power usage. In Toronto, I dont know of any who will not, not charge extra. Many are starting to consider a metering formula and pay what you draw. Typically you get X amps for what you initially commit to-- half rack, full rack, cage etc. You hit that power limit, you have to pay more for another circuit-- usually a BIG shock. There is one big colo provider in Toronto who has plenty of physical space, but doesnt have a hope in hell of pulling in more power without busting the bank. Power is a big issue for colo providers. Whether they ultimately bury the cost of power in end user price and hope the user will come with one econo cool 300W PS and not some dual 1KW ps, the issue is a real one and a tricky one to deal with.... Call up Q9, Raco/Switch&Data, GT/Sprint/Rogers, Telus and ask them, "So if I buy a cage from you, do I have to pay extra if I need another 20A of power ?" For our own data center, if I can squeeze in more CPU performance in an existing power framework by spending a few bucks to reduce my monthly power draw (remember I have to factor in cooling and genset power as well), even with some one time initial server costs, the ROI is not very long.... Not to mention the alternatives --- paying extensive civil construction costs to pull in more power from the local utility, upsizing gensets and A/C... Its costly. ---Mike